Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi guys, I was recently asked about how to do Battle damage so it is easy to complete and looks appealing, without being overdone.

Here's my argument regarding discretion when using battle damage on models.

Opinions, examples and arguments would be appreciated and an idea of whether this kind of "Informative" post was helpful in making decisions in painting. (It's not quite a tutorial, but I'm hoping it might help people make guidelines for themselves when they paint.)



An example piece from the argument in the link.

I can agree with that.

In my army, certain models will have more damage than others - death company, for example will actually have no wear. This is because Death Company paint their armour black before they go into battle and thus, any wear is painted over. (So, a concious decision not to paint wear.) There's still battle damage on some models, but not wear as I've done on those blood angels.

The Angels themselves have a bit of tear that's common across all models. Some of the wear borders on universal (most of my MkIV armour will have some wear on the plating where it is removed when off duty.) and my Rhinos will be suitably scuffed for a unit that's jumping from mission to mission in a campaign, rather than one that's been fighting a war of attrition.